• VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Look, I am a big believer in attempting to educate other people and better the world around you by trying to change harmful or hateful outlooks, but I also realize that some people cannot be changed. Trying to engage these types of people in real life is just putting yourself in danger. Engaging them online is fine but there’s a limit to how long you should spend having dialogue with someone who could probably argue their irrational viewpoints for weeks on end without stopping.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      17 minutes ago

      Unfortunately, the solution to the paradox boils down to “Might Makes Right”. The bounds of tolerance aren’t set by a consensus, but by whomever has the Power to Yeet.

      And while this game seems satisfying early on (Yeet the Nazis! Yeet the Tankies! Yeet the Radical Centrists!) you do get into a cycle of purity where you’re yeeting anyone who questions whether the last guy who got yeeted deserved it.

      That leaves us with the age-old Martin Niemöller verse:

      “And then they came to Yeet me - and there was no one left to Yeet back on my behalf”.

      What is the appropriate degree of tolerance? How do you prevent it from expanding to include people who would dissolve the institution? How do you prevent it from collapsing into a state of cult-like obedience to authority? It’s a balancing act and one that the individuals with the power to silence fringe communities rarely have an interest in performing.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Here in the states, even the most progressive Democrats are right of center compared to the industrialized world, and so those who are centrist are leftist by comparison, and those who are left wing are seen as radical, even when we talk about how the justice system, between its false conviction rate, law enforcement brutality or propensity for cruel (if usual) punishments, needs to be either massively overhauld, or disassembled and redesigned from the beginning.

      But any state or society that decides it needs to cull the population for any reason has failed as a community, and therefore has failed as a state or a society.

      Also centrists, like their conservative brethren, fail to recognize that the misery experienced by the bottom rung strata is extreme and heinous, and the neglect by institutions to act on it as if it were a crisis is heinous itself (and might compare to crimes against humanity). And this is what fuels radical direct action (even terrorism) from the left.

      (Curiously, Osama Bin Laden said as much was what drove his own terror campaign, including the 9/11 attacks, though he was also pissed at George H. W. Bush’s gulf war, what he thought he could resolve with his mujahideen army. But the Gulf War from the US position was less about Kuwait and more about securing oil for import to the US.)

      (And yes, left-wing violence gets into tankie territory, what is a paradox of wanting to create a functional, peaceful public-serving society that isn’t exploited from the top, and being unable to compute how to get there without breaking one’s own principles. We radical leftists are not good at this yet.)

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The person making the argument could just be naive too.

      I could see myself 25 years ago making such a statement in completely good faith, trying to see both sides and all that. But I was naive to think that both sides were also arguing in good faith.

      But to be fair, that naive messenger would still be repeating an argument that originated in bad faith.

    • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      So is anyone rational actually leaving Godot? I saw that Redot, last I checked they were 52 commits behind, and their only 4 commits were changing any references of “Godot” in the code to “Redot”

        • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The community manager posted something about Godot being woke on Twitter in response to someone saying using a game engine is “woke”, and a bunch of repliers were banned, some bans were reasonable, some bans weren’t. The official response from Godot was pretty lackluster too.

          Posting anything progressive on Twitter is just stirring the pot at this point, and it’s a little funny, since the majority of game devs I’ve met have been incredibly leftist, a lot of the folks getting pissy weren’t game devs, but just capital G Gamers

      • burghler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Personally I don’t think it’s wise to abandon Godot for a fork that will always lag behind and also just seems like a crude protest in retaliation. I think using Godot is fine as it is and unfortunately a con to the engine is we have to deal with silly politics from them being unfortunately in control of the Godot loudspeaker. I had to leave their discord because of the circlejerk they have going on was unbearable.

        I wish we could just have a professional space.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, you can plant seeds… But you won’t win anything. And the seeds, you plant will be absorbed by others looking on mostly.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Maybe assuming you are the only one with reason in a conversation is the problem. You don’t have to agree with someone to understand their point of view or reasoning.

      Its definitely easier to ban or block if all you want is a circle jerk though.

      • I’m with you, but understanding someone’s view sometimes means acknowledging that it is, in fact, irrational. There are reasons some give as to why they think that cis women need protection from trans women, but those reasons are either not rational since the vast majority of evidence is to the contrary, or they are founded on the extreme minority of evidence that confirms them (meaning the search for evidence was conducted irrationally).

        If I try to understand someone’s point of view, restate it to them in a way they accept, and present overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and their response is to say the evidence is irrelevant because it’s possible some of it was biased, that’s irrational.

      • femtech@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        There is no debating with people that believe in mythology as real life. Who says there is a lake of fire I’ll go to because I’m queer, who vote for someone their religion says is the anti-christ. Blocking is just avoiding stepping in shit.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          One could spend the enegry to spin their own beliefs to demostrate their contradictions… but their cognitive dissonance will cause them to just dig deeper to maintain their world view… people have to have an open mind before any rational debates can be made.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            For most of my life, I was pretty quiet about being an atheist, and literally all of my friends were Christian; *they assumed I was too, and it was easier to let them. Eventually I stopped caring who knew, and finally told a few of my friends that I’m atheist. In every case, the response was ‘you can’t be atheist – you’re too nice’.

            A couple of them flat-out refused to believe I’m atheist, telling me that I’m actually Christian, I just don’t go to church or pray, and that’s okay. Utterly refusing to accept I don’t believe in their god, and trying to convince me of all the reasons I’m acktuaaly a believer, even if I don’t think I am. It’s been confusing and maddening. Some of these conversations have gone on for more than a decade.

            Many people will straight-up refuse to see anything that doesn’t conform to their worldview, and there’s not a thing you can say to break through it.

            e: *

      • Zement@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        To avoid bigotry is really hard nower days. I don’t like Israels genocide but don’t think all Jews or even Israelis are monsters. I absolutely hate the Iranian politics of murdering women for getting raped and similar stuff, but I don’t think war is the solution. And suddenly someone jumps out of the woodwork blaming you “for support of genocide”… am I the bigot? I don’t know any more…

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant

      Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course

      Step 3: use force on intolerant people

      Exactly what makes you any different than this group of “intolerant people” you are talking about?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant

        Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course

        Looks like you’ve already completed steps 1 and 2…

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:

        Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant

        Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation

        Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.

        Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.

        Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.

        • Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong

          Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)

          Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)

          Step 3: use force.

          The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.

      • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Well, I’m not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that’s being blocked.

        If someone wants to argue economy with me, I’ll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block

      • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.

        But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.

        What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.

        More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.

        This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:

        I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.

        I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.

  • twinnie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Is this kind of stupid rhetoric that sows the divide in US politics and it’s why places like Lemmy and Reddit are just echo chambers. Just saying people who have the opposite few are stupid and should be ignored does nothing to address their concerns and they still get a vote at the end of the day.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      As someone who actively seeks out ideological conflict, I’ve learned that you simply cannot reason with fascists. Beyond the more general inability to reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into, fascism has no principles outside of winning and being the strongest. Truth is an inconvenience. Only rhetoric matters; spinning words into salient phrases that result in them appearing better than you. They will use tidbits of logic, but often in ways where they don’t differ from their opponent.

      US politics being divided right now is a good thing if you value any aspect of our system. Everyone from Cheney to Sanders agree with the liberal democratic framework that the US was founded on. Despite their wildly differing perspectives on what parts matter most, every president from FDR to Ronald Reagan was ideologically liberal. That held true for 200+ years, and then Trump was elected.

      Trump, unlike Bush or Reagan, actually despises every element of liberalism. He hates not using power without the restraints of principles like freedom, democracy, or even free market capitalism. He actively undermined the interests of big business, which loves the status quo funneling wealth to them. However, the instability caused by economic woes fuels demands for change, which is easily co-opted by fascists who blame the other rather than the fat cats.

      The end result is that Trumpism took control from the liberal conservatives that wanted business to win through the ballot box. He divided this country by rejecting all common ground politics, instead focusing on the raw mechanisms of power. He flip-flops positions because none of them actually matter beyond how they grant him power. He destroys the career of any Republican that have power of their own, replacing them with weaklings like Mike Johnson and JD Vance. Republicans are nothing without him now.

      Trump supporters aren’t necessarily stupid, as the smartest a human can be is not very smart, but they are beyond arguing with. If you can’t accept that reality, join the Trump camp. He offers exactly the self delusion you want.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yeah, thats all very much more likely than a large group of people just being sick of being forgotten and taken advantage of by democrats. It couldn’t possibly be that there are legitimate grievances with that party.

        How obtuse must you be to just assume the opposite position must be all insane people.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I thought you were the apple out of naive belief that people can reason with bigoted groups. But it seems like you are closer to being a member than an onlooker. That’s really the point of the comic, isn’t it? The apple is not participating in good faith.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Hmm. I see you read what you wanted to in my post. It’s true that many Trumpians feel helpless and forgotten. It’s true that the Democrats are mostly evil dogshit, largely upholding an economic system that makes people feel powerless and exploited. The middle class shrinks as the risk of getting taken out by medical debt, scams, disasters and predatory businesses with more legal rights than people. The Dems are owned by people who truly want none of that to get better or stop getting worse. If there’s one thing Democrats and Republicans can bond over, it’s hating the Democratic party.

          The logic and actions of Trump’s followers might be madness, but their emotions are fuelled by real problems they are right to be upset about. Even multimillionaires are vulnerable to economic ruin and destitution, creating a real fear that their lives are always in danger. Unless you have “fuck you” money, you’ll never get enough to be safe. We’re sliding deeper into the lawless state of nature, where it’s everyone for themselves and your only right is to do whatever it takes to survive.

          That’s why they believe that migrants are coming to take everything away from them. Someone is coming to ruin them, but it’s not the other. It’s why white men so easily believe that women and minorities have it better than them. The only reason we’re “stealing” rights from men is that capitalism makes human rights a resource of increasing scarcity. Fewer people get their human rights, but that supply could easily be infinite if neoliberal capitalism didn’t only reward them based on wealth.

          Believe that I’m a close minded idiot stuck in an echo chamber all you want, it won’t change the fact that I’m addicted to understanding other points of view. I’m a sicko who faces bigotry head on and endures hatred that most are smart enough to avoid. Don’t think for a second that I agree with yeeting apologists because I’m unwilling to challenge my beliefs. That’s the funnest part for me. I only agree because it doesn’t help anybody in most cases. The cost of tolerating intolerance is higher than the overall benefit in spaces like these.

    • NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      You mistake conflict for confusion.

      If someone’s terminal values are opposed to yours you cannot convince them. Sometimes people change core opinions slowly, but almost always by interaction with people close to them (i.e. where they have conflicting drives to uphold or reject an opinion). Internet debate me bro shit is pointless and just poisons spaces.

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Ah yes, you are so correct. I should “address the concerns” of bigots that tell me I shouldn’t have the right to exist, and that I’m going to rape fellow women in the bathroom. My mistake.

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I appreciate this, I really do, but you do have to be careful not to end up like certain leftist Reddit subs where I got banned for the heinous crime of suggesting that voting for Harris might produce better outcomes than voting for Trump. Some level of discussion that goes beyond what the majority (or, lbr, the mods) think has to be allowed or you just have an echo chamber.

    Granted, that isn’t what is happening in the comic. The apologist here is genuinely advocating tolerance of Nazis. This situation is appropriate.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I think I got banned for replying “?” to someone saying NATO was bad because I’d literally never heard anyone say that. The context was about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I’m glad I’m off Reddit and modlogs are public here.

    • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      In my experience, most self-identified centrists, at least in the US, are to the right of what anyone reasonable would actually consider center. And I don’t mean that in an “um ackshually the Dems are center right” way either, I mean they’re often just Conservatives who don’t hate gays (but do hate trans people) or something.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    The apple fell somewhere completely devoid of apple trees and scientists could not trace it back to the tree of origin.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The uncommitted/third party vote is what caused biden to drop out of the race. It could also very well cost the democrats the election.

      When a minority group has outsized power due to circumstance, they should use it to affect the change they want.

      The point isnt to make democrats lose its to put pressure on them to drop their worst positions, which happen to include genocide.

      You can argue that you think it won’t work, but its a prediction. Noone knows, which is why even among Muslims this debate has people on both sides.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        None of what you said is how anything works in US government. Biden has some crazy takes on the war in Gaza, but it’s rooted in them being our allies and something else that I have no idea about.

        3rd party in a 2 party system just takes away votes from another person. You have to calculate who that’s gong to be and assess the risk to the people and government.

        When a single party is in charge of the both the house and senate and there are no assholes that can be bought off, that’s the only time things can be changed.